bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: unauthorised information

flexm

2 posts
bridgetalk member

unauthorised information ( 10:02:45 ThuJul 3 2003 )


           K7432
           AJ2
           J75
           92

 QT98              J65
 Q543              87
 AT6               942
 K8                Q7843

           A
           KT96
           KQ83
           AJT5


     N       E       S       W
                    2NT      P
     3C     P       3NT      P
     4S     P       5C       P
     P      P

Bidding Commentary

1. 2NT was alerted and explained as any 4441 with 16+pts

2. 3C was alerted and explained as asking about the singleton

3. West enquired about 3NT. North bids 4S and says that it shows a singleton club

4. On hearing this, South makes a 'hoh' sound and moves (but then withdraws) the pen towards the bidding pad. North hears the sound but does not see the pen movement.

5. After East's pass, South bids 5C which is passed out.

6. East places the lead card face down and West, after a brief discussion with north about his unhappiness with the bidding, calls the director.

Ruling

'If you think you have been disadvantaged, call me back at the end of the play'.

There seemed no necessity to call the director back, however, I am curious about the rights and wrongs of the bidding sequence.

Questions

1. Should North rebid 5S and ignore the possibility that South forgot the system and misbid the hand?

2. Should North interpret the 5C as showing first round control and therefore bid 5H? If so, could South pass instead of bidding 5S or something else?

3. Is it right for West to call the director at the lead stage, or should the director be called at the end of the play?

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: unauthorised information ( 11:58:30 ThuJul 3 2003 )

Both South and North have UI from partner, South because of North's explanation, North because of the 'hoh' and the pen movement. He may have been aware subconciously of the pen movement even if he was not aware conciously. Both North and South were required to do their best to take no advantage of this.

South's 5

bid is definitely unacceptable. However, there is no need for a ruling since 4

is more successful than 5

{it might even make} so there is no damage.

South's 5

does sound like a cue-bid. If asked the TD will rule an adjusted score, but eventually I am not sure East-West would gain anything. So there probably is no reason for any adjustment. If the TD had been called back he would probably not adjust since there seems no damage, but would have explained to North and South their responsibility under the Law.

As to your questions, North should avoid taking any advantage. It is not entirely clear that he did by passing 5

which appears to be a 4-2 fit. What he should bid is not certain, and a TD might or might not adjust. I would not be telling North what he should have done since it is not clear.

Whenever a player is afraid an opponent's action may have been affected by UI it is normal to call the TD immediately so as to establish the presence of UI as soon as possible. West's only mistake was to "discuss" it with North before calling the TD.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

James Vickers

Re: unauthorised information ( 13:33:12 ThuJul 3 2003 )

Country: UK

I don't know how many tricks were made in 5C, but I would certainly be looking at possible adjusted scores. I don't know what NS's agreement on a bid of partner's singleton in this sequence when no suit has been agreed (to play, presumably), but once South has bid 5C I wouldn't allow North's pass. I agree with the original poster that North would either bid 5H (which South might well pass), or 6S. I would probably dream up some combination of 5H-2, 6SX-2 and 6SX-3, and adjust to this if it leads to a worse result than the one obtained (a near certainty).

We were not told what West said to North, but it may just have been some disarming comment to soften the blow before calling the director, in which case I would not regard this as a mistake. That notwithstanding, I'm not sure I quite understand David's answer to Q3. Should the TD have been called (1) at the moment South articulated their dissatisfaction, (2) when North bid 4S, or (3) when dummy was displayed?

James

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: unauthorised information ( 17:43:27 ThuJul 3 2003 )

It is true that we do not know what West said to North, and of course it makes a difference what he actually said. My experience is that

Quote: Flex M

after a brief discussion with north about his unhappiness with the bidding

means that West said some unfortunate things! :sad:

As to when you should call the TD, recommendations differ in different places. {We do ask people making queries to say where they are.} My guess is the query came from Australia or New Zealand, and the recommendations there are similar to English advice, ie to call the TD when there has been UI and possible use of it. Thus the earliest time to call the TD here would be after the 5

bid, which could be based on the explanation. Still calling the TD before the opening lead is also fine.

If you call the TD for the first time at the end of the hand you will get a ruling if the UI can be established, but it tends to be far more difficult to do so then.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

flexm

2 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: unauthorised information ( 07:40:47 FriJul 4 2003 )

Country: Australia

Thank you for the replies.

David, you are right on both counts. That is it is from Australia and also some unfortunate things were said. I was sitting West and I said something to the effect that 'I don't think you can pass after South's actions, I think we better call the director because I am unhappy about the bidding". North took offence to this statement so it would have been better just to call the director.

5C was 2 down vulnerable, our partners were in 3nt making 10 tricks so we were not disadvantaged. I was curious though about the rights and wrongs of the bidding.

At the end of the round further discussion took place about North's bid. Apparently in their system the 5C bid was an impossible bid and North saw two alternatives, either South had a 4441 shape with a singleton spade, or South had gotten it all wrong and had a long club suit. He judged the latter to be true so he passed.

I am still not sure whether he was right to do so rather than bid as if South's first bid was accurate.

Thanks again for the reasoning Dave and James.

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union